Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 06:23 UTC
Legal "The 2010 report, translated from Korean, goes feature by feature, evaluating how Samsung's phone stacks up against the iPhone. Authored by Samsung's product engineering team, the document evaluates everything from the home screen to the browser to the built in apps on both devices. In each case, it comes up with a recommendation on what Samsung should do going forward and in most cases its answer is simple: Make it work more like the iPhone." Pretty damning. We still need to know a few things: how many of these were actually implemented? How common are these types of comparisons (i.e., does Apple have them)? Are these protected by patents and the like? And, but that's largely irrelevant and mostly of interest to me because I'm a translator myself, who translated the document, and how well has he or she done the job?
Thread beginning with comment 530279
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Common practice"
akrosdbay
Member since:
2008-06-09

You are actually saying exactly what I mean: that there is no vacuum in which Apple created the iPhone. That's the whole point. The technology world is like a language, where every individual speaker adds to the language, and over time, it evolves. We would think someone crazy if he were to patent words and grammar that make up the language and start suing people for constructing different sentences using these words and grammar. If he were allowed to do this, it would cause massive damage to a language and the arts.

Yet, that's exactly what Apple and Microsoft are doing, and we have people cheering them on for it. It boggles the mind.



So you are saying people should not copyright works of literature because language already existed. You would then have no problem if another site just took content of OSNews verbatim and started cloning it, right? Since you didn't invent any of the tech used to run this site or the English language itself.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[8]: Common practice
by drcouzelis on Wed 8th Aug 2012 14:00 in reply to "RE[7]: Common practice"
drcouzelis Member since:
2010-01-11

This lawsuit and Thom's comments are in regards to patents. Your comment, which is in regards to copyright, is irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Common practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th Aug 2012 14:41 in reply to "RE[7]: Common practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So you are saying people should not copyright works of literature because language already existed. You would then have no problem if another site just took content of OSNews verbatim and started cloning it, right? Since you didn't invent any of the tech used to run this site or the English language itself.


You completely and utterly misunderstood everything I said.

I did not say people should not protect the sum of their work. I said they should not be able to protect the parts of that sum if they had no hand in inventing said parts. Apple is not attacking Samsung based on the overall iPhone, because it's pretty obvious the two are completely and utterly different. No, Apple is smarter than that, and is suing using the small parts. Apple is trying to stifle the competition using frivolous small parts - and not the sum.

In other words, your example is of no relevance. Your example would be of relevance if Samsung released the Epple yPhone S4 which looked identical to iOS and the iPhone 4S. However, that's not the case.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Common practice
by akrosdbay on Wed 8th Aug 2012 15:29 in reply to "RE[8]: Common practice"
akrosdbay Member since:
2008-06-09

[
Apple is not attacking Samsung based on the overall iPhone, because it's pretty obvious the two are completely and utterly different. No, Apple is smarter than that, and is suing using the small parts. Apple is trying to stifle the competition using frivolous small parts - and not the sum.


In other words Samsung is smarter than to copy Apple verbatim just like any plagiarist. So you are saying if one copies parts of a literary work and changes it slightly it is ok?

Colleges these days have sophisticated programs to detect these sorts of things so Students don't pass off other peoples work as theirs even if they lifted parts of it and changed a few things. Because doing so is unethical.

http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/judicialaffairs/integrity/plagia...

What you described Samsung doing is akin to paraphrasing. Here is what George towns honor code says about that:

http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/honor/system/53503.html

In other words it is dishonorable and unethical to pass even parts of anyone else's work as your own. Period.

In other words, your example is of no relevance. Your example would be of relevance if Samsung released the Epple yPhone S4 which looked identical to iOS and the iPhone 4S. However, that's not the case.


You can't be seriously saying that this is ok:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/09/28/no-comment-proof-that-samsung-shamel...

The chargers, packaging etc look nearly identical. For once look at things objectively. If Samsung could get away with releasing a EyePhone they would.

Reply Parent Score: 1